Social mobility | AQA A-Level Sociology
Updated: Aug 30
For Specification 7192
AQA A-Level Sociology | Free Revision Notes
Estimated study time: 90-105 minutes
Social mobility concerns movement between positions within a system of stratification. This Social mobility A-Level Sociology revision page examines different forms of mobility, the extent to which people move between social positions and why mobility chances are unequal. It also compares functionalist claims about openness and meritocracy with Marxist, feminist and other explanations of restricted mobility. The lesson brings together earlier work on social class [Social class], life chances [Social class, gender and life chances] and changing inequality [Changing structures of inequality]. AQA specifically requires the nature, extent and significance of patterns of social mobility.
Learning Objectives 🎯
By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:
Define social mobility and distinguish its main forms.
Explain upward and downward social mobility.
Distinguish intergenerational from intragenerational mobility.
Distinguish absolute from relative social mobility.
Examine factors that may increase or restrict opportunities for mobility.
Explain why chances of social mobility may vary by class, gender, ethnicity and disability.
Compare functionalist, Marxist, Weberian, feminist and other sociological interpretations of mobility.
Evaluate the significance of patterns of social mobility for understanding contemporary stratification.
Revision Notes 📚
Social mobility A-Level Sociology revision overview
The AQA specification requires students to understand:
the nature of social mobility
the extent of social mobility
the significance of patterns of social mobility
The course plan places social mobility as the final lesson in Stratification and Differentiation because it draws together many of the preceding topics, including:
social class
class, status and power
life chances
class measurement
changing structures of inequality
globalisation
Social mobility is therefore not an isolated topic. It tests whether inequalities between social positions are relatively open to movement or tend to be reproduced over time.
What is social mobility?
Social mobility refers to movement between positions within a system of social stratification.
In this topic, mobility is usually considered in relation to:
social class
occupation
socio-economic position
A person may move:
upwards
downwards
within the social hierarchy.
AQA's 2024 mark scheme explicitly recognises:
upward and downward mobility
intergenerational and intragenerational mobility
absolute and relative mobility
as relevant concepts for understanding social mobility.
Social mobility and stratification
A stratification system places individuals or groups in unequal social positions.
Social mobility asks:
How possible is it for people to move between these positions?
If mobility is common, the system may appear relatively open.
If people's eventual positions strongly resemble the positions into which they were born, inequality may be more strongly reproduced.
The basic relationship is:
starting social position → opportunities and barriers → later social position
Mobility therefore connects social origins with social destinations.
Upward social mobility
What is upward mobility?
Upward social mobility occurs when an individual moves to a more advantaged position within the system of stratification.
This might involve movement into an occupation associated with:
greater income
greater security
higher status
greater authority
AQA has repeatedly assessed factors affecting working-class opportunities for upward mobility, including in 2020 and 2025.
Example
Someone whose family occupies a relatively disadvantaged occupational position may gain qualifications and later enter a more advantaged professional occupation.
The analytical chain is:
educational opportunity → qualifications → access to higher occupational position → upward social mobility
However, the possibility of an individual moving upwards does not automatically demonstrate that everyone has equal chances of doing so.
Downward social mobility
What is downward mobility?
Downward social mobility occurs when a person moves to a less advantaged social or occupational position.
This may occur through:
unemployment
occupational decline
economic restructuring
loss of secure employment
AQA's 2022 examination recognised that globalisation may lead to downward mobility when firms close or relocate, threatening employment in the UK.
Example
A worker may lose a secure occupational position following industrial restructuring and later enter less secure or lower-paid employment.
The process may be:
job loss → lower occupational position → reduced income or status → downward mobility
Mobility therefore operates in both directions.
📌 Exam tip: Social mobility does not mean "moving up". Always distinguish upward from downward mobility.
Intergenerational social mobility
What is intergenerational mobility?
Intergenerational social mobility compares the social position of individuals with the position of a previous generation, usually their parents.
For example:
a child of manual workers entering a professional occupation
a child of highly advantaged parents entering a less advantaged occupational position
The first may indicate upward intergenerational mobility.
The second may indicate downward intergenerational mobility.
AQA explicitly includes intergenerational mobility within the concepts relevant to its 2024 social mobility essay.
Why intergenerational mobility matters
Intergenerational mobility provides evidence about the relationship between:
social origin
and
social destination
If parental class strongly affects children's eventual class positions, sociologists may argue that advantages and disadvantages are being reproduced between generations.
If people from different origins have similar chances of reaching different positions, the structure may appear more open.
This makes intergenerational mobility central to debates about:
meritocracy
equal opportunity
class reproduction
Intragenerational social mobility
What is intragenerational mobility?
Intragenerational social mobility refers to movement within an individual's own lifetime or career.
For example, someone might move:
entry-level occupation → managerial occupation
during their working life.
Alternatively:
secure professional occupation → less advantaged occupation
would indicate downward intragenerational mobility.
AQA includes intragenerational mobility alongside intergenerational mobility in its 2024 mark scheme.
Intergenerational versus intragenerational mobility
Type | What is compared? | Example |
Intergenerational mobility | Position across generations | Adult child's class compared with parental class |
Intragenerational mobility | Positions within one person's life | First occupation compared with later occupational position |
This distinction is very useful in essays because AQA's 2024 examiner report specifically noted that relatively few students used traditional concepts such as intergenerational and intragenerational mobility.
Absolute social mobility
What is absolute mobility?
Absolute mobility concerns the total amount of movement between social positions.
It asks questions such as:
What proportion of people occupy a different social position from their parents?
Changes in the occupational structure can produce large amounts of absolute mobility.
For example, if the economy creates many more professional occupations and fewer manual occupations, some people must move into the newly expanded positions.
Why absolute mobility can increase
AQA's 2020 mark scheme recognises changes in the occupational structure as a factor creating working-class opportunities for upward social mobility.
The process may be:
more advantaged occupations expand
↓
more people are needed to fill them
↓
some people from lower social origins move upwards
↓
absolute upward mobility increases
This does not necessarily prove that the chances of mobility have become equally distributed.
Relative social mobility
What is relative mobility?
Relative mobility concerns the comparative chances that people from different social origins have of reaching particular destinations.
Rather than simply asking how many people move, it asks:
Are people from different class backgrounds equally likely to reach advantaged positions?
This distinction is crucial.
A society could experience considerable absolute mobility because its occupational structure has changed while still having unequal relative chances of reaching the most advantaged positions.
AQA explicitly includes absolute and relative mobility among the concepts relevant to the 2024 social mobility question.
Absolute and relative mobility compared
Absolute mobility | Relative mobility |
Concerns the total amount of movement. | Concerns comparative mobility chances between social groups. |
Can be strongly affected by changes in the occupational structure. | Focuses on how strongly social origin affects destination. |
High absolute mobility can occur when new occupations expand. | Unequal relative mobility can remain even when many people move upwards. |
This distinction is central when evaluating whether mobility demonstrates meritocracy.
Structural mobility
Although AQA's 2024 mark scheme uses the concepts of absolute and relative mobility rather than listing "structural mobility" separately, changes in the occupational structure are repeatedly recognised in AQA assessment as a reason why people may move between class positions.
The important principle is:
Some mobility occurs because the number and type of available social positions change, not simply because individuals become more talented or motivated.
This is an important challenge to purely individual explanations of mobility.
Measuring social mobility
Occupational scales
AQA's 2024 mark scheme identifies occupational scales as relevant to social mobility.
To measure mobility, sociologists need to identify:
a person's starting social position
their later social position
whether movement has occurred between the two
Occupation is often useful because occupational classifications provide positions that can be compared.
For example:
parent's occupation → child's occupation
can be used to identify intergenerational mobility.
Measurement depends on how class is defined
This creates a major problem.
Social mobility cannot be measured until social class itself has been measured.
If sociologists disagree about whether class should be identified through:
occupation
income
wealth
economic resources
other forms of capital
then mobility measurements may also differ.
This links directly to class measurement [Defining and measuring social class] and occupation-based measures [Occupation, gender and social class].
Changing occupations create comparison problems
Occupational structures change between generations.
For example:
some occupations decline
new occupations appear
occupational boundaries become less clear
This makes comparison between parents and children more complicated.
Someone may occupy a different type of occupation from their parents partly because the economy itself has changed.
This is one reason the distinction between absolute and relative mobility matters.
The extent of social mobility
How much social mobility is there?
AQA does not require students simply to memorise one percentage and reproduce it.
The 2024 examination instead frames the issue sociologically.
Item P stated that research suggests social mobility in the UK has been low for the last 50 years and that mobility chances differ by gender and ethnicity.
This was provided as stimulus for debate, rather than as an instruction to assume that all forms of mobility are absent.
Students therefore need to examine:
how much mobility occurs
which type of mobility is being measured
whose mobility chances are being compared
Why the extent of mobility is difficult to summarise
A claim such as:
"There is lots of social mobility"
is too vague.
It could refer to:
absolute mobility
relative mobility
upward mobility
downward mobility
intergenerational mobility
intragenerational mobility
A society could have:
substantial absolute movement
but unequal relative chances
or:
upward mobility for one group
but restricted mobility for another
A strong answer specifies the type of mobility being discussed.
Factors encouraging upward mobility
AQA has assessed upward mobility directly.
The 2020 mark scheme recognises several possible factors, including:
educational opportunities
changes in the occupational structure
parental aspirations
acquisition of wealth
educational policies
These factors show that mobility may be influenced by both:
individual or family resources
wider structural change
Education and mobility
Education can provide qualifications needed for entry into more advantaged occupations.
A possible chain is:
educational success → qualifications → access to occupational opportunities → upward mobility
AQA's 2020 mark scheme explicitly recognises meritocratic education and qualification gain as possible routes to upward working-class mobility.
However, educational opportunities are not necessarily distributed equally.
Occupational change
The expansion of more advantaged occupational positions can create opportunities for upward mobility.
AQA's 2020 mark scheme specifically accepts changes in occupations and the occupational structure as a factor.
This illustrates the difference between:
mobility generated by individual competition
and
mobility generated by structural change.
Acquisition of economic resources
AQA's 2020 mark scheme also recognises acquisition of wealth as a possible route to upward mobility.
Economic resources can improve opportunities and alter someone's social position.
This connects mobility directly to economic capital.
Why working-class people may face barriers to upward mobility
The 2025 examination asked specifically why working-class people may not be able to achieve upward social mobility.
The official mark scheme recognises:
educational underachievement
socialisation and aspirations
limited access to social and cultural networks
lack of cultural capital
changes in job opportunities under globalisation
glass ceiling and glass floor
wider restrictions associated with capitalism
These provide several different sociological mechanisms.
Educational inequality
Working-class educational underachievement may reduce access to qualifications associated with more advantaged occupations.
The chain is:
educational disadvantage → fewer qualifications → restricted occupational access → reduced upward mobility
The 2025 examiner report states that students commonly used educational underachievement when explaining restricted working-class mobility.
Aspirations and socialisation
The 2025 mark scheme recognises the possibility that socialisation may limit aspirations towards upward mobility.
This provides a cultural explanation.
However, students should avoid implying that working-class disadvantage is simply caused by individual attitudes.
Aspirations operate within wider inequalities in:
resources
education
networks
employment opportunities
A balanced answer should therefore consider both cultural and structural factors.
Cultural capital
Cultural capital refers to culturally valued knowledge, skills and ways of behaving that may provide institutional advantages.
AQA's 2025 mark scheme explicitly identifies limited cultural capital and knowledge as a possible barrier to upward mobility.
The analytical chain may be:
unequal cultural resources → unequal institutional advantage → different educational or occupational opportunities → unequal mobility chances
Social capital and networks
Social capital refers to useful relationships and networks.
AQA's 2025 mark scheme identifies limited access to social and cultural networks as a possible restriction on upward mobility.
Networks may provide:
information
contacts
awareness of opportunities
If access differs between classes, mobility chances may differ even where formal opportunities appear open.
Why advantaged groups may avoid downward mobility
Social mobility is not only about disadvantaged groups moving upwards.
AQA's 2021 examination asked how members of higher social classes may avoid downward mobility.
The mark scheme recognises:
economic capital
opportunity hoarding
the glass floor
access to advantaged educational opportunities
This shifts attention from:
"Why don't disadvantaged people move up?"
to:
"How do advantaged people protect their position?"
That is an important sociological change of focus.
Economic capital
Greater economic resources may help advantaged families maintain their social position.
For example, resources may be used to increase children's opportunities.
AQA's 2021 mark scheme explicitly identifies economic capital as a factor helping higher social classes maintain their position.
This means mobility is influenced not only by ability, but also by unequal resources.
Opportunity hoarding
Opportunity hoarding refers to advantaged groups retaining desirable opportunities for themselves or their families.
AQA identifies opportunity hoarding as relevant to both the 2021 and 2024 social mobility material.
The process can be represented as:
advantaged group controls resources or opportunities
↓
opportunities concentrated among existing members
↓
children of advantaged groups maintain their position
↓
downward mobility is reduced
Opportunity hoarding therefore helps explain class reproduction.
Glass floor
The glass floor refers to processes that help prevent people from advantaged social backgrounds falling into lower social positions.
AQA's 2021 mark scheme connects the glass floor directly with higher-class children being protected from downward mobility.
It is the opposite direction of analysis from the glass ceiling.
Glass ceiling: barriers can block upward movement.
Glass floor: resources can protect against downward movement.
Both contribute to unequal mobility chances.
Social closure
Social closure refers to processes through which groups restrict access to desirable positions or opportunities.
AQA's 2024 mark scheme recognises social closure as relevant to explaining social mobility.
Closure may occur where advantaged groups are better able to:
control access to opportunities
use networks
reproduce advantages
This can reduce relative mobility even if some absolute movement occurs.
Old boy networks
AQA's 2024 mark scheme includes old boy networks among concepts relevant to social mobility.
The concept illustrates how informal social networks may help already advantaged individuals gain access to desirable opportunities.
This is an example of social capital contributing to unequal mobility chances.
The important examination point is not the phrase itself, but the mechanism:
advantaged network → privileged access to information or opportunity → greater chance of maintaining or improving position
Functionalist explanations of social mobility
Mobility as evidence of an open society
AQA's 2024 Item P gives the functionalist argument clearly.
For functionalists, social mobility indicates that society is open and that people with appropriate talent and ability can be allocated to suitable occupational roles.
This links mobility to:
meritocracy
achievement
role allocation
openness
Functionalist reasoning
The argument can be represented as:
positions open to competition
↓
talented individuals achieve appropriate roles
↓
people can move beyond their social origins
↓
social mobility demonstrates openness
If this process operates effectively, social origin should not completely determine destination.
Meritocracy
A meritocracy is a system in which positions are allocated according to achievement, talent or ability.
AQA explicitly recognises meritocracy among concepts relevant to social mobility.
For functionalists, upward mobility can show that individuals are able to achieve positions on merit.
The possibility of downward mobility is also important.
In a genuinely meritocratic system, privileged origins should not permanently protect individuals who lack the achievement required for advantaged positions.
Achievement versus ascription
AQA's 2024 mark scheme recognises both ascription and achievement.
Achievement refers to social position gained through what an individual does.
Ascription refers to social position influenced by characteristics or circumstances attributed to the individual rather than personal achievement.
This creates a key mobility question:
Is someone's eventual position mainly achieved through merit, or strongly shaped by their social origins?
The greater the importance of inherited class advantages, the weaker the case that stratification is purely achievement-based.
Evaluating the functionalist view
Unequal starting points
Marxists challenge the claim that everyone competes from equal positions.
AQA's 2024 item states that those already high in the social structure can pass advantages to their children and that opportunities for those lower down may be limited.
If classes possess unequal:
economic capital
cultural capital
social capital
then formal openness may not create equal mobility chances.
Absolute mobility does not prove meritocracy
This is a particularly strong evaluation.
Suppose the number of professional occupations expands.
More people from working-class backgrounds may enter those occupations simply because there are more positions available.
That creates absolute mobility.
However, if middle-class people remain substantially more likely to reach the most advantaged positions, relative mobility may remain unequal.
Therefore:
mobility exists
does not automatically mean:
mobility chances are equal.
Mobility may legitimise inequality
A system containing some highly visible upward mobility may appear meritocratic even if opportunities remain unequal.
The possibility of mobility can encourage the belief that:
"Anyone can succeed."
A critical sociological question is whether examples of mobility demonstrate genuinely equal opportunity or whether they obscure structural inequalities.
Marxist explanations of social mobility
Class reproduction
Marxist approaches emphasise the reproduction of class inequality.
AQA's 2024 item presents the Marxist argument that people already high in the social scale can pass advantages to their children.
This can occur through unequal:
economic resources
cultural resources
social networks
access to opportunities
Mobility chances therefore reflect class structure rather than merit alone.
Limited upward mobility
From a Marxist perspective, opportunities for people lower in the class structure may be restricted.
AQA's 2025 mark scheme accepts the argument that capitalism restricts working-class people from achieving upward social mobility.
The broad structural reasoning is:
capitalist class inequality → unequal resources and opportunities → reproduction of social position → restricted relative mobility
Elite self-recruitment
The 2024 examiner report notes that stronger theoretical discussions contrasted functionalist meritocracy with Marxist ideas including class and elite self-recruitment.
Elite self-recruitment refers to advantaged positions being disproportionately filled by people from already advantaged social origins.
This challenges the view that access to the top is equally open.
Strength of Marxist explanations
Marxism helps explain:
why social origin may continue to affect destination
why advantaged groups can protect themselves against downward mobility
why unequal capital affects opportunities
why some mobility can coexist with persistent class inequality
Limitation
A strongly class-based approach may understate:
genuine upward mobility
occupational change creating new opportunities
gender differences
ethnic differences
disability-related barriers
individual achievement
AQA's 2024 item explicitly points out that mobility chances differ by gender and ethnicity, showing that class is not the only relevant dimension.
Weberian explanations of social mobility
AQA's 2024 mark scheme recognises Weberianism as one perspective relevant to social mobility.
A Weberian approach is useful because stratification is multidimensional.
Movement may involve changes in:
class
status
power
and different social groups may have different life chances of reaching desirable positions.
This can provide a more differentiated account than a simple two-class model.
Strength
The approach recognises that occupational positions are varied and that mobility may occur across a complex hierarchy.
Limitation
A more complex model can make mobility harder to measure because sociologists need to decide:
which positions are genuinely higher or lower
how class, status and power should be compared
This again links mobility to the problem of measuring social class [Defining and measuring social class].
New Right interpretations
AQA includes the New Right and meritocracy among theoretical concepts relevant to its 2024 social mobility mark scheme.
Like functionalist arguments about openness, New Right approaches can be used to examine the importance of:
individual opportunity
achievement
merit
The central debate is whether differences in destination mainly reflect:
differences in achievement
or
unequal structural opportunities.
When using the New Right, students should keep the explanation tightly focused on mobility rather than writing a general account of the perspective.
Gender and social mobility
Mobility chances differ by gender
AQA's 2024 Item P states directly that chances of social mobility differ for women compared with men.
Relevant concepts listed in the mark scheme include:
discrimination
feminism
patriarchy
glass ceiling
genderquake
Gender therefore provides an important challenge to explanations that treat social mobility as entirely determined by class origin and individual ability.
Glass ceiling
The glass ceiling refers to barriers that restrict access to senior occupational positions.
If women encounter greater barriers to promotion:
gender discrimination → restricted occupational progression → reduced upward mobility
This shows how mobility may differ even among people from similar class origins.
Patriarchy
Feminist explanations may interpret unequal mobility chances as part of wider patriarchal inequalities.
These may involve:
caring responsibilities
employment discrimination
barriers to senior roles
Gender can therefore affect both:
starting opportunities
later occupational destinations
Genderquake and changing mobility
AQA's 2024 mark scheme recognises genderquake as relevant to mobility.
The concept can be used to consider whether changes in women's education, employment and social position have increased opportunities for mobility.
This provides useful evaluation of theories that assume gender inequalities are completely fixed.
Ethnicity and social mobility
The 2024 AQA item states that some ethnic groups have been more socially mobile than others.
The mark scheme recognises:
ethnicity
racism
discrimination
as relevant to explaining these differences.
Possible mechanisms include:
educational opportunities
occupational opportunities
discrimination
social class position
The important point is not to treat all ethnic groups as one homogeneous category.
Different groups may experience different mobility patterns.
This connects to ethnicity and life chances [Ethnicity, age, disability and life chances].
Disability and social mobility
AQA examined disability and mobility directly in 2023.
The mark scheme recognises possible restrictions including:
discrimination in promotion
restricted access to occupations
institutional discrimination in work and education
restricted access to healthcare
cuts to welfare and care
It also recognises possible improvements through:
working from home
educational support
equality policies
This demonstrates that mobility is influenced by the social environment as well as by class origin.
Disability and structural barriers
A disabled person's opportunities for mobility may be restricted if organisations create barriers to:
education
employment
promotion
The process may be:
institutional barrier → restricted opportunity → lower occupational destination → reduced upward mobility
However, if social arrangements change, mobility opportunities may also improve.
This shows why sociologists distinguish between individual characteristics and structural barriers.
Globalisation and social mobility
Globalisation is another factor directly assessed by AQA.
The 2022 mark scheme recognises:
migration for employment
foreign competition
unemployment
expansion of companies
changing skill requirements
educational opportunities overseas
as ways globalisation may affect mobility.
Globalisation can therefore produce either:
upward mobility
downward mobility
depending on the circumstances.
Migration
Migration to access employment can create new opportunities.
The 2022 examiner report notes that students successfully discussed mobility among migrants who move to take advantage of employment and lifestyle opportunities.
However, migration itself is not automatically upward mobility.
The resulting occupational or social position must actually represent movement within the stratification system.
Foreign competition and downward mobility
Globalisation may also threaten existing employment.
AQA's 2022 examiner report recognised downward mobility when firms:
close
relocate
The chain may be:
relocation → loss of employment → lower occupational position → downward mobility
This links social mobility to globalisation and the transnational capitalist class [Globalisation and the transnational capitalist class].
Changing occupational structures and mobility
Changes in structures of inequality can create mobility even when individuals themselves have not gained additional advantages.
For example:
decline of one occupational sector + expansion of another
can alter how many people occupy each position.
This is why changes in:
manufacturing
service employment
professional occupations
insecure work
matter when evaluating mobility.
A person may move because society's occupational structure changed, rather than because competition became more meritocratic.
Social mobility and the reproduction of advantage
A central sociological question is:
Why do advantaged families often possess resources that help their children remain advantaged?
AQA assessment provides several concepts for answering this:
economic capital
social capital
cultural capital
social closure
opportunity hoarding
glass floor
old boy networks
These mechanisms demonstrate how advantages can be transmitted between generations.
Economic capital and mobility
Economic resources may give individuals access to:
educational opportunities
investments
protection during periods of difficulty
The 2025 examiner report noted that better answers explained upward mobility through processes such as:
investment
inheritance
education
This provides an important evaluation of pure meritocracy.
Resources available before competition begins can affect the outcome.
Inheritance
The 2025 examiner report explicitly notes inheritance as one way stronger answers explained how upward mobility might be achieved or social advantage maintained.
Inheritance can reproduce economic advantage across generations.
This means a person's destination may partly depend on resources received from their family.
The significance of social mobility
The specification requires more than knowing how much movement occurs.
Students must evaluate the significance of mobility patterns.
This means asking what those patterns tell us about:
equality
meritocracy
class reproduction
opportunity
social openness
other dimensions of stratification
Significance 1: Is society open?
Functionalists interpret social mobility as evidence that society is open.
If individuals can move from their social origins into positions matching their talent and ability, origin does not completely determine destination.
High mobility may therefore appear to support meritocracy.
However, the type of mobility matters.
High absolute mobility does not necessarily demonstrate equal relative chances.
Significance 2: Does class origin still matter?
Marxists interpret restricted mobility as evidence that social class continues to shape life chances.
If advantaged families can:
pass on resources
protect children from downward mobility
restrict access to desirable opportunities
then social origin continues to influence destination.
This suggests that inequality is reproduced rather than simply earned.
Significance 3: Mobility can reveal unequal opportunity
Differences in mobility rates between:
social classes
women and men
ethnic groups
disabled and non-disabled people
can reveal structural inequalities.
AQA's 2024 item specifically draws attention to gender and ethnic differences, while the 2023 assessment directly examined disability.
Mobility is therefore a useful way of testing whether formal equality of opportunity translates into similar chances in practice.
Significance 4: Mobility may legitimise stratification
If society contains some upward mobility, inequalities may be interpreted as fair because people believe success is open to everyone.
However, this argument depends on whether mobility chances are genuinely similar between social groups.
If starting advantages strongly affect destination, the existence of some upwardly mobile individuals does not necessarily make the overall system meritocratic.
Significance 5: Downward mobility matters too
A system should not be assessed only by whether people from disadvantaged origins can move upwards.
If advantaged families are consistently able to prevent their children moving down, relative opportunities remain unequal.
The concepts of:
glass floor
opportunity hoarding
are particularly important here.
A society in which some people can rise but advantaged groups rarely fall may remain strongly stratified.
Social mobility and meritocracy
What would meritocratic mobility look like?
A strongly meritocratic system would imply that:
social positions are open
achievement matters more than social origin
talented people can move upwards
privileged backgrounds do not guarantee privileged destinations
Functionalism therefore places considerable significance on mobility.
Evidence that challenges meritocracy
AQA assessment material provides several challenges:
working-class educational inequality
unequal cultural capital
unequal social networks
opportunity hoarding
glass floor
discrimination
gender differences
ethnic differences
These suggest that people's chances may not be equally distributed.
Open and closed systems
The functionalist emphasis on an open society can be contrasted with structures in which social origins strongly constrain destinations.
Rather than treating societies as perfectly open or completely closed, sociologists can examine degrees of openness.
Questions include:
How strong is the relationship between origin and destination?
Who experiences upward mobility?
Who is protected from downward mobility?
Which barriers remain?
Do opportunities vary between social groups?
This produces a much more useful analysis than simply labelling a society "open".
Social mobility and inequality
Mobility and inequality are not the same thing.
A society could contain:
high inequality
but substantial movement between positions
or:
lower inequality
but relatively little movement
Social mobility asks who moves between positions.
Inequality asks how different those positions are.
This distinction is important when evaluating the significance of mobility.
A highly mobile society could still contain very large gaps between its most and least advantaged positions.
Social mobility and life chances
Mobility is closely connected to life chances.
Life chances affect people's opportunities to move, while mobility can change their later life chances.
For example:
class resources → educational opportunity → occupational mobility → changed income and health chances
Mobility is therefore both:
an outcome of earlier inequalities
a possible cause of later inequalities
This brings together the wider Stratification and Differentiation topic.
Social mobility and class measurement
The reliability of mobility evidence depends on the reliability of class measures.
If occupational categories become less clear, identifying movement becomes more difficult.
For example, if a parent's occupation and child's occupation belong to very different parts of a changing economy, deciding whether the child has moved "up" may depend on the classification used.
This links social mobility to:
defining class [Defining and measuring social class]
occupation-based class measures [Occupation, gender and social class]
changing structures [Changing structures of inequality]
Mobility statistics must therefore be interpreted rather than treated as self-explanatory.
Empirical evidence and social mobility
AQA's 2024 mark scheme lists a range of possible sources and studies relating to social mobility, including:
Goldthorpe
the Oxford Mobility Study
Sutton Trust
Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission
Savage and others
The supplied mark scheme lists these as possible sources but does not provide their detailed findings, so they should only be used in revision where their evidence has been studied accurately elsewhere.
The important examiner-report lesson is clear.
The 2024 report noted that few students referred to empirical mobility studies, while the 2025 report similarly stated that only a minority referred to studies such as the Sutton Trust.
📌 Exam tip: Accurate evidence can deepen an answer, but do not invent statistics or attach unsupported findings to a named study.
Comparing explanations of social mobility
Perspective | Main interpretation | Evaluation |
Functionalism | Mobility shows openness, meritocracy and effective role allocation. | Unequal starting resources may make opportunities less equal than they appear. |
Marxism | Class advantages are reproduced and upward mobility for lower classes is restricted. | Genuine mobility and changing occupational structures show class positions are not completely fixed. |
Weberianism | Mobility operates through a complex stratification system involving class, status, power and life chances. | A multidimensional approach may make class movement harder to classify precisely. |
Feminism | Gendered discrimination and patriarchal barriers affect opportunities for mobility. | Gender interacts with class, ethnicity and changing employment patterns. |
New Right | Achievement and merit can play an important role in determining destination. | Structural inequalities may mean individuals do not begin with equal opportunities. |
Postmodernism | Changing occupations and less fixed class identities may make traditional mobility categories less straightforward. | Continuing economic inequalities suggest class origin remains important. |
These perspectives are all included among the concepts and theories recognised by AQA's 2024 mobility mark scheme.
Is upward mobility always beneficial?
Upward mobility may improve:
income
status
occupational security
life chances
However, the sociological significance lies not simply in judging whether mobility is "good".
The more important questions are:
Why did the movement occur?
Was access to the opportunity equal?
Which groups are most likely to move?
Does the mobility change the overall structure of inequality?
Is one person's movement matched by another person's downward movement?
Mobility needs to be interpreted within the wider stratification system.
Does mobility reduce inequality?
Not necessarily.
Imagine a hierarchy with very unequal positions.
People might frequently exchange positions while the distance between the top and bottom remains unchanged.
This would be a mobile society, but not necessarily an equal one.
Alternatively, opportunities for mobility may themselves be unequal.
Social mobility therefore does not automatically:
abolish class divisions
reduce wealth gaps
remove gender inequality
eliminate racism or discrimination
It tells sociologists something important about movement within inequality, not necessarily the disappearance of inequality.
Applying social mobility in an examination
Consider this original scenario:
Two students gain the same qualifications. One comes from a family with substantial economic resources and professional networks. The other comes from a household with fewer resources and limited access to occupational contacts.
A weak answer might say:
"The richer student has more chance of social mobility."
A stronger analysis identifies the mechanisms.
Economic capital
greater family resources → greater access to opportunities → greater protection from disadvantage → increased chance of maintaining or improving social position
Social capital
professional networks → access to information and contacts → greater occupational opportunities → increased chance of upward mobility
Then evaluate:
Does equal educational achievement demonstrate meritocracy?
Do unequal networks weaken equal opportunity?
Is the advantaged student actually moving upwards or simply avoiding downward mobility?
Does the example show the glass floor?
Would relative mobility still be unequal even if both students ultimately improve their positions?
This demonstrates the conceptual precision needed for high-level answers.
Applying absolute and relative mobility
Imagine an economy in which the number of professional jobs doubles.
Many people from working-class backgrounds move into these occupations.
At first this seems strong evidence of meritocracy.
However, suppose people from middle-class backgrounds remain much more likely to enter the very highest occupational positions.
The correct analysis is:
more professional occupations → increased absolute upward mobility
but
continued origin differences → unequal relative mobility
This is much stronger than simply saying:
"There is more social mobility."
Applying the glass ceiling and glass floor
Imagine two processes.
Process A
A highly qualified woman repeatedly encounters barriers to promotion into the most senior occupational positions.
This may illustrate:
glass ceiling → restricted upward mobility
Process B
A young person from a highly advantaged family experiences educational difficulties but receives extensive economic and social support that helps them enter a desirable occupation.
This may illustrate:
glass floor → protection against downward mobility
Together these show why mobility analysis needs to examine both:
barriers to rising
protection against falling
Overall significance of social mobility
Patterns of social mobility tell sociologists how social origins are connected to later destinations.
They can provide evidence about:
openness
meritocracy
class reproduction
unequal opportunity
gender inequality
ethnic inequality
disability-related barriers
effects of globalisation
changing occupational structures
The most important evaluative principle is:
The existence of social mobility does not by itself prove equal opportunity.
Students must examine:
what kind of mobility is occurring
how extensive it is
who is moving
who is not moving
which groups are protected from downward mobility
whether changing occupational structures explain the movement
whether relative chances are becoming more equal
That is what turns a descriptive account of movement into a sociological analysis of its significance.
Key Words 🔑
Key word | Student-friendly definition | How it may be used in an exam |
Social mobility | Movement between positions within a system of social stratification. | Use as the core concept when discussing movement between class or occupational positions. |
Upward mobility | Movement into a more advantaged social position. | Use when explaining education, occupational opportunities or changes in resources. |
Downward mobility | Movement into a less advantaged social position. | Apply to unemployment, occupational decline or loss of economic advantage. |
Intergenerational mobility | Movement identified by comparing a person's social position with that of a previous generation. | Use when discussing whether parental class affects children's destinations. |
Intragenerational mobility | Movement within one individual's lifetime or career. | Use when analysing occupational progression or decline. |
Absolute mobility | The overall amount of movement between social positions. | Use when occupational change creates more opportunities for movement. |
Relative mobility | The comparative chances that people from different social origins have of reaching particular positions. | Use when evaluating equal opportunity and meritocracy. |
Social closure | Processes through which groups restrict access to desirable opportunities or positions. | Use in Marxist or Weberian explanations of restricted mobility. |
Glass ceiling | Barriers that restrict upward movement into senior positions. | Use when analysing class or gender differences in upward mobility. |
Glass floor | Processes that protect people from advantaged backgrounds against downward mobility. | Use when explaining reproduction of privilege. |
Opportunity hoarding | The retention of desirable opportunities by already advantaged groups. | Use to explain why relative mobility may remain unequal. |
Meritocracy | A system in which social positions are allocated according to talent, ability or achievement. | Use when evaluating functionalist interpretations of social mobility. |
Hints from the Examiner Reports 💡
Examiner hint: Use the terminology of social mobility itself. In the 2024 20-mark question, relatively few students used traditional concepts such as intergenerational and intragenerational mobility even though these were directly relevant.
Examiner hint: Use empirical evidence where you know it accurately. The 2024 report noted very few references to empirical mobility studies, and the 2025 report similarly noted that only a minority referred to studies such as the Sutton Trust.
Examiner hint: Do not discuss social class in general when the question asks specifically about mobility. The 2025 mark scheme identifies drift into general discussion of social mobility or class as characteristic of weaker responses.
Examiner hint: Develop the mechanism. In 2025, stronger answers did more than identify middle-class resources. They explained how investment, inheritance and education could help individuals achieve or maintain advantageous positions.
Examiner hint: Consider both upward and downward movement. The 2022 report praised answers that recognised globalisation could create opportunities for migrants while also causing downward mobility when firms closed or relocated.
Examiner hint: For a significance question, do not simply list causes of mobility. Ask what the pattern tells us about openness, meritocracy and the reproduction of inequality. AQA's 2024 item was deliberately structured around the contrast between functionalist openness and Marxist reproduction.
Examiner hint: Use alternative perspectives to evaluate the theory named in the question. Do not allow the essay to become separate descriptions of functionalism, Marxism and feminism with no explicit comparison.
Common Mistakes ⚠️
Mistake: Defining social mobility as upward movement
Why this is incorrect: Mobility can be both upward and downward.
How to improve: Define it neutrally as movement between social positions, then identify the direction.
Mistake: Confusing intergenerational and intragenerational mobility
Why this is incorrect: One compares different generations; the other examines movement within an individual's own life.
How to improve: Remember:
inter = between generations
intra = within one life
Mistake: Treating absolute and relative mobility as the same thing
Why this is incorrect: Absolute mobility concerns how much movement occurs, while relative mobility concerns differences in chances between social origins.
How to improve: Ask:
Absolute: how many move?
Relative: who has the best chance of moving?
Mistake: Assuming high absolute mobility proves meritocracy
Why this is incorrect: Absolute mobility may increase because the occupational structure changes.
How to improve: Examine whether relative chances have become more equal.
Mistake: Only explaining why disadvantaged people fail to move upwards
Why this is incorrect: Mobility patterns are also shaped by how advantaged groups avoid moving downwards.
How to improve:
Use concepts such as:
glass floor
opportunity hoarding
economic capital
social closure
Mistake: Using the glass ceiling and glass floor interchangeably
Why this is incorrect: They describe different processes.
How to improve: Remember:
ceiling = stops movement up
floor = stops movement down
Mistake: Treating social mobility as proof that inequality has disappeared
Why this is incorrect: People can move between positions while the differences between those positions remain very large.
How to improve: Separate mobility from the extent of inequality.
Mistake: Saying society is meritocratic because one person from a disadvantaged background succeeds
Why this is incorrect: Individual examples do not demonstrate equal relative chances across the population.
How to improve: Examine patterned differences by origin and social group.
Mistake: Ignoring gender, ethnicity and disability
Why this is incorrect: AQA explicitly recognises that mobility chances may differ by gender and ethnicity and has directly assessed disability and mobility.
How to improve: Use these dimensions when evaluating a class-only explanation.
Mistake: Describing globalisation without linking it to mobility
Why this is incorrect: The sociological question is whether globalisation moves people into more or less advantaged social positions.
How to improve: Complete the chain:
global change → employment opportunity or loss → occupational movement → upward or downward mobility
Exam-Style Questions ✍️
Questions
1. Identify one form of social mobility involving movement to a more advantaged social position.[1 mark]
2. Identify one concept describing processes that protect people from advantaged backgrounds against downward mobility.[1 mark]
3. Explain the difference between intergenerational and intragenerational social mobility.[4 marks]
4. Explain the difference between absolute and relative social mobility.[6 marks]
5. Outline and explain two reasons why people from working-class backgrounds may experience restricted upward social mobility.[10 marks]
6. Read Item A below and answer the question that follows.
Item ASome families possess substantial economic resources that can be used to provide educational opportunities for their children. They may also have social networks that give family members access to useful information and occupational opportunities.These advantages may help individuals maintain their social position.
Applying material from Item A, analyse two ways in which advantaged families may reduce the likelihood of downward social mobility.[10 marks]
7. Read Item B below and answer the question that follows.
Item BInternational economic change may create new occupational opportunities, including opportunities for people who move to find employment. However, firms may also relocate work, causing some employees to lose secure occupations.Globalisation may affect patterns of social mobility.
Applying material from Item B, analyse two ways in which globalisation may affect patterns of social mobility.[10 marks]
8. Read Item C below and answer the question that follows.
Item CSome sociologists argue that movement between occupational positions shows that society is open and rewards individual talent and achievement.Other sociologists argue that families pass economic, social and cultural advantages between generations, meaning that people's chances of reaching advantaged positions continue to depend strongly on their social origins.
Applying material from Item C and your knowledge, evaluate the view that social mobility demonstrates that contemporary society is meritocratic.[20 marks]
9. Read Item D below and answer the question that follows.
Item DChanges in the occupational structure can create opportunities for people to move into different social positions. However, the chances of reaching the most advantaged positions may remain unequal between social classes and may also vary by gender and ethnicity.Sociologists therefore disagree about what patterns of social mobility reveal about contemporary inequality.
Applying material from Item D and your knowledge, evaluate sociological explanations of the significance of patterns of social mobility.[20 marks]
Mark Scheme
Question 1
Award 1 mark for:
upward social mobility
Question 2
Award 1 mark for:
glass floor
Opportunity hoarding may also be credited if clearly appropriate.
Question 3
Award up to 4 marks.
Indicative content:
Intergenerational mobility compares social positions between generations.
Intragenerational mobility concerns movement within an individual's own lifetime or career.
An appropriate example can develop either distinction.
Example answer: Intergenerational mobility compares someone's class or occupational position with that of their parents. Intragenerational mobility describes movement during one person's own life, such as progressing from an entry-level occupation into management.
Question 4
Award up to 6 marks.
Indicative content:
Absolute mobility
concerns the total amount of movement between social positions
may increase when the occupational structure changes and more advantaged positions expand
Relative mobility
concerns the comparative chances of people from different social origins reaching particular destinations
focuses on whether opportunities are similarly distributed
Example answer: Absolute mobility measures how much movement occurs overall, such as the proportion of people who enter a different occupational class from their parents. Relative mobility compares the chances of people from different origins reaching the same destination. There may therefore be high absolute mobility while people from advantaged origins still have a greater relative chance of reaching the top.
Question 5
This is an outline and explain question.
Students should develop two separate reasons.
Indicative material may include:
educational underachievement
unequal economic resources
limited social networks
limited cultural capital
differences in aspirations
social closure
opportunity hoarding
occupational change
globalisation reducing some employment opportunities
structural restrictions associated with class inequality
For each reason:
identify the barrier
explain how it affects access to opportunity
link it explicitly to reduced upward mobility
Evaluation is not required.
Question 6
Students should explicitly apply both hooks from Item A.
Way 1: Economic resources
Item A states that families possess economic resources.
These resources can be used to provide educational and other opportunities.
Children from advantaged backgrounds may therefore be better able to enter desirable occupations.
Economic capital can protect them from downward mobility, contributing to a glass floor.
Way 2: Social networks
Item A states that families have useful networks.
Social capital can provide contacts and information about occupational opportunities.
These advantages may help family members access desirable positions.
Opportunity hoarding or privileged networks may therefore reduce the chance of downward mobility.
For high marks, students should analyse protection from falling, rather than turning the answer into a general account of middle-class advantage.
Question 7
Students should use both sides of Item B.
Way 1: New opportunities
Item B refers to new occupational opportunities and migration.
Individuals may move to access better employment.
Entry into a more advantaged occupation can increase income or status.
Globalisation may therefore create upward mobility.
Way 2: Relocation and job loss
Item B refers to firms relocating work.
Employees may lose secure occupational positions.
They may become unemployed or enter less advantaged employment.
Globalisation may therefore cause downward mobility.
The strongest answers explain the direction of movement.
Question 8
This is a 20-mark evaluative essay.
A high-level response should focus continuously on whether mobility demonstrates meritocracy.
Functionalist arguments may include:
open society
meritocracy
achievement
talent and ability
role allocation
upward mobility as evidence that origin does not fix destination
New Right arguments may include:
individual achievement
opportunities to improve social position
meritocratic allocation
Marxist evaluation may include:
class reproduction
unequal economic capital
cultural capital
social capital
elite self-recruitment
social closure
opportunity hoarding
glass floor
restricted working-class mobility
Absolute versus relative mobility
occupational expansion may produce substantial absolute mobility
unequal relative chances may remain
mobility itself therefore does not prove equal opportunity
Feminist evaluation may include:
discrimination
patriarchy
glass ceiling
unequal mobility chances by gender
Ethnicity may be used in evaluation:
different ethnic groups may experience different mobility rates
racism or discrimination may restrict opportunity
Changing structures may be used:
new occupations can produce mobility independently of increasing meritocracy
A strong conclusion should judge whether observed mobility reflects genuinely equal opportunity or whether patterned inequalities in relative chances remain.
A reasoned conclusion might argue that mobility demonstrates that class positions are not completely fixed, but this is weaker evidence for meritocracy if family resources and social characteristics continue to shape who has the greatest chance of moving upwards.
Question 9
This question requires students to evaluate the significance of mobility patterns rather than simply describe their causes.
Nature of mobility
Students may distinguish:
upward and downward
intergenerational and intragenerational
absolute and relative mobility
Functionalist significance
social mobility indicates openness
talent and ability are allocated to appropriate occupational roles
mobility supports meritocracy
Marxist significance
restricted relative mobility suggests reproduction of class inequality
advantaged families pass resources to children
social closure and opportunity hoarding limit openness
the glass floor protects advantaged groups
Changing occupational structure
expansion or decline of occupations can generate absolute mobility
this may occur without equalising relative chances
Gender
glass ceiling
patriarchy
discrimination
changing female opportunities
Ethnicity
mobility rates vary between ethnic groups
racism and discrimination may influence opportunity
Disability
institutional barriers can restrict mobility
changing working arrangements and equality measures can increase opportunities
Globalisation
employment creation and migration may increase upward mobility
relocation and foreign competition may produce downward mobility
Measurement issues
mobility depends on how class and occupation are classified
changing occupational structures complicate comparisons between generations
For the highest marks, students should repeatedly answer:
What does this pattern of mobility tell us about contemporary stratification?
A strong conclusion might argue that social mobility is significant because it provides one test of how open a system of stratification is. However, the amount of movement alone is insufficient. The most important issue is whether relative chances of reaching advantaged positions are becoming more equal across social origins and groups. Mobility can therefore coexist with substantial inequality when advantaged groups retain resources that protect their positions and restrict others' opportunities.
Comments